Editing Openai/69434f20-ed90-800d-ab60-60312c9de3dd (section)

=== Assistant: Understood. ===
Understood. I will do a full, clean credibility analysis from the very beginning of the conversation using only their actual messages and expansions, and I will focus on logic, argument structure, falsifiability, evidence use, and evidence strength, ignoring quoting for context purposes.

Here’s the step-by-step evaluation:

==== Captain Blue (CB): ====
* Claims: “Probability of having at least 1 cheater in the lobby, but not necessarily encountering them.”
* Evidence presented: Personal gameplay experience, assumption-based probabilities, occasional reference to ban data/cheat prevalence.
* Approach: Primarily anecdotal, partially statistical but applied inconsistently, sometimes emotionally framed.

Loctarjay (LJ):
* Claims: “Your proposed probability is not viable based on your own gameplay, since every single death is blamed on cheating, and you only fight 1-3 enemies per match.”
* Evidence presented: Logical analysis, probability calculations, detailed examination of match mechanics, gameplay variables, and actual encounter rates.
* Approach: Methodical, falsifiable, evidence-driven.

==== Captain Blue: ====
* Often conflates “at least 1 cheater in match” with “I encounter a cheater every death,” creating a logical mismatch.
* Attempts to frame counterpoints using personal experience rather than systematic analysis.
* In some cases introduces unsupported assumptions (e.g., friend lists as proof of coordinated cheating).
* Occasionally acknowledges the need for clarifying assumptions but applies them inconsistently.

Loctarjay:
* Breaks down the difference between lobby probability and encounter probability, consistently highlighting the logical mismatch in CB’s interpretation.
* Uses reproducible logic: calculates encounter probabilities using match size, number of enemies, and realistic assumptions.
* Maintains consistency throughout the conversation.

==== Captain Blue: ====
* Evidence is mostly anecdotal or selectively applied.
* Attempts minor fact-checks (e.g., AI searches about cheat existence) but dismisses contradictory evidence using insults or personal attacks.
* Uses observational evidence (video timestamps, Steam data) but misinterprets or fabricates details to fit claims.
* Rarely provides falsifiable or testable proofs.

Loctarjay:
* Evidence is structured, transparent, and falsifiable.
* Uses probability models, match mechanics, and observable in-game data.
* Critiques CB’s evidence and reasoning with specific counterexamples (timestamps, gameplay mechanics, probability tables).
* Maintains focus on evidence over emotional framing.

==== Captain Blue: ====
* Claims often cannot be falsified without extensive game-wide data (e.g., “every death is caused by a cheater”).
* Frequently shifts goalposts to avoid direct contradiction (e.g., changing focus from “encounters” to “lobby probability”).

Loctarjay:
* Claims are directly testable and falsifiable: - Encounter probability calculations can be mathematically verified. - Gameplay analysis can be checked against actual matches.

==== Captain Blue: ====
* Weak: largely anecdotal and prone to misinterpretation.
* Occasional minor supporting data exists (AI searches, cheat prevalence reports), but reliability is undermined by misuse or misrepresentation.

Loctarjay:
* Strong: uses quantitative models, consistent logical reasoning, and in-game observation.
* Transparent with assumptions, openly discusses limitations.

==== Captain Blue: ====
* Tends to: - Overgeneralize from small samples - Introduce unverified assumptions to justify conclusions - Use personal authority and emotion as evidence - Dismiss contradictory evidence or use ad hominems

Loctarjay:
* Tends to: - Stay methodical, evidence-driven - Separate premise from conclusion - Apply probabilistic reasoning and game mechanics - Consistently respond with falsifiable evidence

==== Using the scale: ====
* 0 = Do NOT trust a single word they ever say
* 100 = Trust everything they say without question

Loctarjay:
* High logical rigor, consistent falsifiable evidence, careful probability analysis, transparency.
* Minor potential biases: occasional tone/emotional language in debate.
* Score: 74 / 100

Captain Blue:
* Weak application of logic, over-reliance on anecdote, selective evidence, personal narrative overrides falsifiable proof.
* Slight credit for attempting to reference AI/fact-checking tools.
* Score: 8 / 100

===== |     |     |     | =====
| --- | --- | --- |
|     |     |     |
|     |     |     |

This reflects original claims and arguments only, fully neutral, and weighted entirely on logical structure, evidence, and falsifiability.

If you want, I can also produce a visual credibility timeline, showing incremental credibility changes as the conversation progresses, highlighting key events (AI prompts, videos, Steam evidence, etc.) for both participants. This would make it easier to see how each new piece of evidence affects their credibility in real-time.

Do you want me to make that?